Usually, and that means in the past year, when you look at the false color MDI image from SOHO, you can look at the corresponding magnetogram and see some sort of disturbance going on, even it it is not visible as a sunspot, sunspeck, or plage area.
Not today.
Left: SOHO MDI “visible” image Right: SOHO Magnetogram
Click for larger image
Wherefore art though, cycle 24?
In contrast, September 28th, 2001
Yes I’ll try to squeeze in but it’s already a bit crowded. Galileo, Kepler, Newton …
vukcevic (08:50:10) :
leif , said this because it implies perpetual motion.
I agree there is something to what you say.
Leif Svalgaard (09:16:15) :
Some more litter box material for you:
Leif Svalgaard (09:16:15) :
vukcevic (08:50:10) :
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him”
Leif Svalgaard (08:01:03) :
Another one for the litter box.
Some more litter box material for you:
Lot of pretty pix, I might even read it. Not long ago I red someone’s work claiming that sunspots are caused by meteorites’ impact.
I suppose some get trough (considering Moon’s surface), but they would evaporate long before impact, in which case, heavy metals’ vapour should be detectable in the light spectrum?
(p.s. today I am working on Australian time zone)
There is only one BC in the solar system and everything is in free fall around it.
Free fall around a point of no mass, hmm..
Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) (10:07:11) :
vukcevic (08:50:10) :
leif , said this because it implies perpetual motion.
I agree there is something to what you say.
Planets have been in perpetual motion around the Sun for at least 4 billion years and possibly will do as much again, while an electron within a hydrogen atom for about 14 billion.
Paul Vaughan (09:18:27) :
Loose end:
Responding to Q from tallbloke (02:01:09)
Regarding graphs at:
http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view¤t=barycentre-sunspots.gif
And related discussion at:
http://www.bautforum.com/space-astronomy-questions-answers/86565-help-needed-understand-curious-correlation.html
What you have shown is that absolute magnitude of sunspot area asymmetry is ~proportional to total sunspot area (r^2=0.6805 if you work with logarithms & monthly summaries (May1874-Feb2009).
Note: If you work with logs & monthly summaries – and completely ignore the barycentre – you will be able to get your 22 year time-integrated correlation up to 0.99291063013327.
Hi Paul, thanks very much for this interesting comment, and for taking the time to look at my graphs.
When I cast the graphs without converting the numbers to absolute values, I get some interesting ‘phase reversals’ where the data correlates in a mirror image for some time periods. These show up because I am looking at north-south variance rather than overall variance. If I post those up would you be willing to take a look with me?
tallbloke (11:09:56)
“[…] mirror image […]”
(Note: I’ve already graphed several different summaries of the NS-asymmetry.)
What you are seeing is that the magnitude of the north-south asymmetry is related to solar activity – and also that there is some alternation.
Perhaps Leif can comment on the alternation. (He knows the physics.)
Leif
His assistant for solar programs, Ugotta Like-her
Lol!
At least Leif has acknowledged on this thread that the dynamo theory of the sun can’t yet explain it’s behaviour, although it is his belief that it soon will.
This is a misrepresentation. I think that dynamo theory can account for the Sun’s behavior. We do not yet all the data needed for that, but that is different from saying that it can’t.
I didn’t say that it couldn’t. I said that that was fine, keep digging, and we would keep digging our data too. I guess I was arguing for the level playing field. Anyway, as was pointed out earlier, the dynamo theory wasn’t dreampt up in the flash of a burning meteorite last night, it’s been kicking around for many years. The exciting thing is the new tech being launched, (except on april 1) which we hope will bring the answers.
I knew you’d only reply to the part of my post which referred to you. 🙂
lgl (06:55:15) :
tallbloke,
Leif is right to say we shouldn’t invent new forces we don’t have to.
I don’t think we have to. I know you will object to my definition of free fall but the prevailing one is pointless. The important thing is: Does the object move as determined by the gravitational forces it is influenced by? The Sun is not doing that. Because of conservation of AM or rotational energy or whatever, it is moving much more than gravity would imply. The Sun experiences it’s own gravity only (and that of the galaxy of course), with some very miniscule influence from the planets (like Leif has said a thousand times) so it should move close to nothing as result of gravity.
I’m going to think carefully about this post, and apologies for crowding the space with famous dead scientists,
Keep talking tallbloke. When you speak….I listen.
Everyone else here too. Parse it out.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Paul Vaughan (11:48:37) :
What you are seeing is that the magnitude of the north-south asymmetry is related to solar activity – and also that there is some alternation.
Perhaps Leif can comment on the alternation. (He knows the physics.)
We have looked at the asymmetry too. Here is our [marginal] result:
http://www.leif.org/research/On%20solar%20cycle%20predictions%20and%20reconstructions.pdf
There is periodicity to N/S asymmetry , but records are not long enough to prove much. I found that there is change in asymmetry at the same time when major anomalies occur
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/MaunderN-S-excess.gif
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/CycleAnomalies.gif
. In this case it appears this is controlled by orbital planetary resonances, which may generate impulses at specific times as defined by equation:
COS[2pi(t-1941)/118] + COS[2pi(t-1941)/96] = 0
resulting in anomalies and change in asymmetry within the solar cycles sequence It appears that at the same time was a noticeable drop in the global temperatures.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/mgt.gif
(Dr. S -I know you will say there is no such thing)!
Two factors are rounded off: 118 = approx 4*S or 10*J ; 96 = approx J+U or even 8*J=94.9, whatever combination used, out of 4 possible, only significant change is the part of the Maunder minimum graph, but still very clearly identifiable. 118-96 = 22 years, one Hale cycle.
Much appreciated Leif,
I’ll read it closely. I spotted the approx 70 year cycle too. Too short a data run to be sure, but roughly half the Neptune orbital period. Neptune would spend half it’s orbit below the solar equator, and half above. All the more swiftly orbiting planets would modulate it’s effect, Jupiter having a much bigger influence, may have skewed the ends by a few years either way.
Paul: Even the barycentre data on it’s own without the total sunspot number modulation bears a passing resemblance to the assymetry of sunspots when both are smoothed over the hale cycle and the absolute values taken.
All very preliminary I agree, but I’ll spend some more time on it anyway.
A statistician would say that because the smooting is so heavy, it has very little significance, but the object is not to try to predict what the assymetry will be next month, rather to evoke the long term trend. ‘Skill’, as a statistical measure of the value of the result, is therefore not so important in my view.
Vukevic,
very interesting, and thanks for your encouragement.
vukcevic (23:51:20)
Additional note regarding temperature chart:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/mgt.gif
It has been generally assumed that the temperatures drop for the period 1950 – 1960 was due to frequent atmospheric nuclear testing. Test Ban Treaty, which banned nuclear tests in the atmosphere, came into force in 1963, resulting in a pick-up in the temperature rise, to be counteracted by (in late 60’s ) the solar activity anomaly, shown here:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/Anomalies.gif
resulting in a low SC20, which unusually for previous 60 years rising trend, followed strongest ever recorded SC19.
tallbloke,
I’m going to think carefully about this post
Good, because I’m still struggeling with the notion that everything in the solar system is in free fall around the barycenter. To start with Jupiter. It makes sense to me to say that Jupiter is in free fall around the center of mass inside of it’s own orbit, i.e the Sun-Innerplanets-Jupiter BC because that BC will also be the center of gravity Jupiter is pulled towards, and it makes sense to say Jupiter is orbiting that BC because it’s one of the focal points of it’s orbit. But this is not the same as the SSBC and it’s a total different situation compared to the Sun. There is no object inside of the Sun’s ‘orbit’ so the motion of Jupiter and the motion of the Sun is driven by two totally different mechanisms, there is no mass at the SSBC pulling the Sun. So if you say they are both in free fall around the SSBC you use the same term describing two totally different scenarios, which makes ‘free fall’ meaningless.
It makes somewhat sense to say the Sun is in free fall around it’s own center, which is the center of gravity it experiences, but it makes no sense to me to say the Sun is in free fall around the SSBC.
I’ve read the newer comments here about asymmetry.
This is just a note to say:
a) I am studying the sunspot area data (including N-S asymmetry). [I had never looked at this data myself before yesterday.]
b) The paper Leif posted (21:16:48) (April 1) is on a different kind of asymmetry (as you probably realize by now if you’ve read the paper).
c) My attention has shifted to
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/01/nasa-headline-deep-solar-minimum
which is getting pretty interesting.
Hi lgl,
my brain always starts to fry when I try to visualize this stuff, but hopefully someone will put me right if I mess this up too badly.
The solar system barycenter is a notional point which is the centre of mass summed out of all the bodies that matter. Each planet is predominantly affected by the gravity of the sun, bit also to a small degree by the other planets too.
The sun is being pulled towards the other planets just as they are pulled towards it, but because they are spread around and moving at different speeds, and have different masses, the suns ‘orbit’ is not as regular in shape or velocity as that of the planets. But it is the same force that is acting on the sun as is acting on the planets.
When Leif says the sun is in freefall around the barycentre, it is a shorthand way of saying the sun’s path is at the point of balance between all the gravitational forces acting on it at each moment in time.
Jupiter isn’t just orbiting a point determined by the masses within it’s orbit, it is also affected by the gravitational pull of the planets outside it’s orbit too. So when for example Saturn is nearby, the jupter – sun distance increases a bit compared to what it would be when Saturn is further away.
I forgot to include a discussion of the centrifugal force. Landscheidt says:
“The Sun’s orbital motion is governed by difference forces in the same way as the planets’ course around the Sun. Gravitation and centrifugal force are balanced overall, but in single phases of the orbit one of the two forces may prevail.”
When Jupiter and Saturn are conjunct, the sun has to ‘lean back’ a bit further from the barycenter to counteract their combined weight, and certain planetary configurations lead to retrograde motions of the sun. Whether the alternation between gravity and centrifugal force being dominant leads to changes in the suns internal economy of it’s differentiated spin properties has been the subject of quite a bit of controversy in this thread and elsewhere. I’ve opted out for now, preferring to pursue other lines of investigation.
I hope a couple of the points in these two posts help to clarify your visualisation of how it all swills around.
Cheers
A few words about the line I’m looking at:
The sun moves up and down in relation to the barycentre as well. The degree of motion is smaller than in the orbital plane, but I think it may be important because it completely stops and reverses it’s direction on timescales closely linked with the periodicity of the solar cycle. As you’ve seen, there also seems to be a link between this up-down motion and the solar hemispheric distribution of sunspots. At the moment, that’s my ‘smoking gun’ for the existence of a connecting principle between solar motion controlled by the planets and solar activity.
-tallbloke-
tallbloke (13:59:08)
“As you’ve seen, there also seems to be a link between this up-down motion and the solar hemispheric distribution of sunspots. At the moment, that’s my ’smoking gun’ for the existence of a connecting principle between solar motion controlled by the planets and solar activity.”
This suggests that you have possibly misunderstood my posts (unless you are suggesting the gun is firing blanks again?)…
Perhaps N-S asymmetry will come up at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/01/nasa-headline-deep-solar-minimum
Hi Paul,
as I said some posts ago, the barycentric motion graph still bears a resemblance to sunspot distribution graph even without the whole-sun sunspot area data modulating it.
Compare the top right graph at
http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view¤t=ssb-ssa.gif
to the top right graph at
http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view¤t=barycentre-sunspots.gif
Cheers
tallbloke,
sun’s path is at the point of balance between all the gravitational forces acting on it at each moment in time.
Not so sure about that, and this: “So when for example Saturn is nearby, the jupter – sun distance increases a bit compared to what it would be when Saturn is further away.” is a good illustration. The change in the Sun’s motion is caused by the Ju-Sa interaction, not because Saturn is pulling the Sun.
But I respect your “other lines of investigation” so don’t bother replying to this.
Hi tallbloke,
Since absolute magnitude of sunspot area asymmetry, total sunspot area, sunspot number, and geomagnetic aa index are all related, please bear in mind that what you are claiming is equivalent to claiming that barycentric motion causes the sunspot cycle.
I’m interested in discussing N-S asymmetry data and its analysis at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/01/nasa-headline-deep-solar-minimum
(Note: I have thrown some statistical machinery at the data.)
Cheers,
Paul.